After the Circuit Court of Appeals has certified questions to
this court and this court has issued its writ of certiorari
requiring the whole record to be sent up, it devolves upon this
court under § 6 of the Judiciary Act of 1891, to decide the
whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been
brought here for review by writ of error or appeal.

The Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209, has a
broader application that the prohibition of restraints of trade
unlawful at common law. It prohibits any combination which
essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the
States, or restricts, in that regard, the liberty of a trader to
engage in business, and this includes restraints of trade aimed
at compelling third parties and strangers involuntarily not to
engage in the course of interstate trade except on conditions
that the combination imposes.

A combination may be in restraint of interstate trade and
within the meaning of the Anti-Trust Act although the persons
exercising the restraint may not themselves be engaged in
interstate trade, and some of the means employed may be acts
within a State and individually beyond the scope of Federal
authority, and operate to destroy intrastate trade as interstate
trade, but the acts must be considered as a whole, and if the
purposes are to prevent interstate transportation, the plan is
open to condemnation under the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890. Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375.

The Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, makes no distinction
between classes. Organizations of farmers and laborers were not
exempted from its operation, notwithstanding the efforts which
the records of Congress show were made in that direction.

A combination of labor organizations and the members thereof,
to compel a manufacturer whose goods are almost entirely sold in
other States to unionize his shops and, on his refusal so to do
to, boycott his goods and prevent their sale in States other than
his own until such time as the resulting damage forces him to
comply with their demands is, under the conditions of this case,
a combination in restraint of interstate trade or commerce within
the meaning of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, and the
manufacturer may maintain an action for threefold damages under
§ 7 of that act.